Andrew Western MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jun 2026 · Relationship between Social Security Scotland and the DWP · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin by saying that I hope the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) saw me taking extensive notes. The speech I was planning to give is perhaps not as bespoke to the issues that she raises as she would like, so at the outset I will make it clear that if she wants to escalate specific cases to me, I am very happy to have a look at them. She has clearly been escalating cases through the usual channels to departmental complaints teams and so on.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Relationship between Social Security Scotland and the DWP · Hansard source

  More

  If it is okay with the hon. Lady, I will come to the broad thrust of the problem she has identified later in my speech. It is quite complex, in that there are also some challenges in this space in England and Wales that were identified by the Sayce review, but I will say a little bit more about that in a moment. There is also continued ministerial engagement between the UK and Scottish Governments through the joint ministerial working group on welfare. That is a long-standing forum, providing oversight of the devolution of social security powers. That is in addition, of course, to bilateral meetings as required, and I am the Government’s representative on that working group. Turning to the thrust of the hon. Member’s contribution about the plight of her constituents in receipt of carer support payments, she is correct that the number of complaint handlers has increased recently. It is also worth mentioning, for the benefit of all colleagues, that I have personally moved into holding a series of regular meetings on complaints and MP correspondence. It is fair to say that the Department recognises that more must be done urgently to get a grip of that. In the past two weeks, I have had two or three such meetings already, and they will continue until we reach acceptable levels of complaint handling and timeliness of response. In that vein, if she would like to send me the details of the case from March that she referred to, which she has been told is yet to be assigned to a case handler, I would be happy to look into that for her. This issue has clearly been distressing for a number of the hon. Member’s constituents, and I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that there will sometimes be cases where someone is given the wrong information by either my Department or by Social Security Scotland, or where our IT systems could join up more effectively. Where that happens, we need to work together to put that right. Where I slightly disagree with the hon. Member is on the suggestion that this issue exists only in Scotland. I think the situation is rather more nuanced. From what she has said, there are clearly some issues that I need to take away and look at, but we have some of the issues that she has identified in England, too; I probably do myself no favours by saying that. I think that we have a broader DWP issue, rather than something I would pin directly on Social Security Scotland. For example, as I have just referenced, the issue with how carer’s allowance and universal credit work together was identified in the Sayce review of carer’s allowance overpayments in England and Wales. In respect of carer’s allowance, we are committed to delivering a change, in line with our plans to modernise DWP services. It will be for me as the Minister for devolution to ensure that the transition to the new arrangements also supports the Scottish mechanisms. Work to automatically offset benefits, which is where we want to get to, will begin in the next financial year and is intended for completion within this Parliament, but I have heard the specifics of what the hon. Member has said for the first time today, and I will take that issue away. I am not able to make the commitment that this will be quickened up, but I want to see whether there is anything we can do. We will work specifically on CSP with Social Security Scotland, and will look at any issues around data sharing and the processes necessary for alignment that are specific to Scotland. Briefly, the implementation of the social security powers in the Scotland Act 2016 has been a significant programme of work, underpinned by strong co-operation between the DWP and Social Security Scotland at every level. Ongoing work will be required to keep the two systems working effectively together, but my Department is committed to doing that work, in the spirit of a productive, customer-focused relationship with the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland. The hon. Member has outlined many issues today—as I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I am happy to look at those in Northern Ireland, where he has them, too. Where issues arise, we will work together—in this case, as Social Security Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions—to learn the lessons from navigating the complexities of creating a shared social security landscape. We will find solutions that are respectful of devolution, that maintain our commitment to working together constructively, and that always keeping in mind what really matters, which is the people who, the Department for Work and Pensions and Social Security Scotland are here to help, and their experience of our services. Question put and agreed to.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Relationship between Social Security Scotland and the DWP · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that. I am the Minister with responsibility for the relationship with the Scottish Government and, therefore, Social Security Scotland, so if the hon. Lady would be kind enough to let me know about the issues, too, I would be very happy to see what we can do to seek a resolution. I think it would be helpful to set out a little bit of the background and context to this issue, before saying what I am able to say about the peculiarities of the system that she highlights, and the impact that they have had on some of her constituents. We should all expect our welfare system to deliver for people as a safety net in difficult times, and to give people the opportunity to build better lives, wherever in the UK they happen to live, so it is only right that we pay attention to this issue. The hon. Lady is a powerful advocate for her constituents, but wherever colleagues are around the country, they should expect an effective and efficient service from the Department, as should their constituents. Following the devolution of significant social security powers through the Scotland Act 2016, responsibility for the delivery of welfare support to people in Scotland is shared between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. That means that many people in Scotland receive social security support from both the UK Government, provided by the DWP, and from the Scottish Government, delivered by Social Security Scotland.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Relationship between Social Security Scotland and the DWP · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not want to get into a tit-for-tat, in terms of determining responsibility between the Westminster Government and the Scottish Government, but it is certainly fair to say that the agency agreements we have entered into have been extended, in some cases on more than one occasion. That can lead to it taking a protracted amount of time for us to deliver as we would hope, and in the most aligned way possible.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Child Maintenance Payments: Non-compliance · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are committed to reforming the Child Maintenance Service to get more money to children by removing direct pay to combat hidden non-compliance, streamlining enforcement by introducing administrative liability orders and improving our most serious enforcement measures. That said, there are currently no plans to introduce curfew measures; doing so would require amendments to primary legislation and raise significant safeguarding concerns for paying parents and those who live with them.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Child Maintenance Payments: Non-compliance · Hansard source

  More

  I will handle that question with care, Mr Speaker. [ Laughter. ] I know that the hon. Gentleman has been consistent on this matter for a very long time. A range of serious enforcement powers are already available to the Department, including disqualification from driving, removal of a passport, taking control of people’s goods and even, in some cases, commitment to prison, but very serious safeguarding concerns can arise as a result of the use of curfew orders; in one very tragic case recently, an individual subject to a curfew order murdered members of his family. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question as to whether use of the orders requires primary legislation, I will follow up in writing to confirm that or otherwise.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise, as the shadow Secretary of State set out, that there has been a great deal of consensus on many aspects of the Bill, and that we are wrangling merely over this one remaining issue. The Opposition argue that this power is wrong in principle, but we fundamentally disagree. We have had this debate on a number of occasions, including on Second Reading. I set out in my opening speech why this continues to be the Government’s position, and we have heard the arguments against. I gently point out that the shadow Secretary of State’s letter to industry last week conceded that in the absence of this sort of power, funds are understandably cautious about being first movers, and that is a legitimate concern. That is the collective action problem that we have. The Mansion House compact has been running since 2023, but progress has been modest. The industry has identified competitive pressure to keep costs low as the single biggest barrier to delivering on its own commitments. In other words, providers want to diversify in their members’ interests, but they risk being undercut on cost by competitors that do not. The reserve power gives the market confidence to move together. We have also heard that the power undermines fiduciary duty—it does not. Trustees’ duties of loyalty and prudence, and to act in members’ best interests, remain.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that conversations are always ongoing to ensure that any legislation that comes from this place can be adopted by all the nations of this great country. I hope that some of the concerns that have continued to be raised by his colleagues, and by peers in the Lords as well, will be addressed by some of the detail that I am about to set out. As I have said, that power can be used only once, and, if unused, lapses entirely in 2032. Even if it is used, however, the entire asset allocation regime falls out of effect and the statute book at the end of 2035. These provisions rule out any of the more lurid uses we have heard it claimed that the power would be used for, restricting it narrowly to underpinning the Mansion House accord. As well as insisting on that package, the Government are today introducing further amendments to the savers’ interest test in the proposed new section 28G of the Bill. I remind the House that the reserve power exists because providers have said that they struggle to do something that is in savers’ interests, namely invest in a wider range of assets. However, the savers’ interest test exists for circumstances in which schemes can show that even investing as little as 10% in private assets—far below the levels that we see internationally, or in open defined benefit schemes here in the UK—might not be in their particular savers’ interest. In those circumstances, it allows them a route to seek an exemption from any requirements imposed by the reserve power. Arguments have been made, here and in the other place, about whether the test as drafted included sufficiently clear and strong protections. The Government have reflected on those arguments, and the further amendments before the House today respond to them. There are four changes. First, we are lowering the threshold for an exemption. The Bill as drafted would have allowed regulations to require a scheme to show that compliance “would cause” material financial detriment. We are changing that to “would be likely to cause”. A scheme will need to show that detriment is the probable consequence, not a certain one. Secondly, the Bill now makes it explicit that when a scheme meets the threshold, the regulator must grant the exemption. That has always been the Government’s intention, and the amendment ensures that there is no room for doubt. Thirdly—here I want to respond directly to arguments raised by noble Lords about the weight that should be given to the judgment of trustees and scheme managers—we are proposing a change to put their assessment of savers’ interests centre stage. The new text makes clear that the responsible regulator must not only receive the scheme’s own assessment of why compliance would be likely to cause material financial detriment, but be required to have due regard to it. Schemes must set out their reasoning, and the regulator must engage with it properly and thoroughly. “Due regard” is established statutory language with legal weight: it means that the regulator cannot simply pay little or no attention to the scheme’s analysis. Fourthly, the regulator must give reasons when it refuses an application. That matters because schemes have a right of appeal to the upper tribunal, a right that is strengthened if applicants know why they were turned down. Let me draw this together. The savers’ interest test now provides a lower threshold, an explicit guarantee that exemptions will be granted when the test is met, a requirement for the regulator to give proper weight to the scheme’s own analysis, and transparency and accountability if an application should fail. Taken alongside the constraints on the power itself—the percentage caps, the single-use restriction, the 2032 sunset and the 2035 full repeal—this is a framework of strong and explicit protections. There are those, here and in the other place, who would prefer the reserve power not to exist at all. As Members of this House know, we respect that position, but it is not a position that we share and it is not the position of the Government. There is a well-evidenced collective action problem in the defined contribution market, and the consequences of leaving it unresolved would fall on pension savers. That is not a risk that the Government are prepared to take. This House has made its view clear on two occasions, and the Government have responded by baking in a raft of additional safeguards to primary legislation. This is now a third round of material changes, which I suspect this House may again endorse with a decisive majority. At some point, the question before the House is no longer the detail of the amendments, but whether the other place should continue to reject the clearly expressed view of the elected House and delay the passage of a Bill that delivers for savers in a whole host of ways. I urge the House to send these amendments back to the other place, and to bring these exchanges to a close.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insists on its amendments 88A, 88C and 88E to 88P to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement, but proposes further amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill. I thank the rather shrinking number of peers and hon. Members who have been engaged in the scrutiny of the Bill. It has clearly come a long way since I closed the Second Reading debate. I am glad, in particular, to see that some progress has been made in recent days with the other place’s agreement to this House’s amendments on the approach to defined contribution schemes achieving scale and on the transparency of public sector pension liabilities. That leaves one issue remaining: the Lords amendments on asset allocation. This House has already considered that question twice, and on both occasions it has rejected the Lords’ position by majorities of over 100. At each stage the Government have reiterated the need for the core policy intent to be delivered, while responding with changes to primary legislation that directly address specific issues raised. I hope the House will bear with me while I explain what we are now proposing, and why I believe it is time for these exchanges to conclude. Let me deal first with the amendments to which we have previously agreed. The reserve power is capped at the Mansion House accord targets: no more than 10% in qualifying assets, and no more than 5% in UK-specific assets. It explicitly applies only to main default funds. Regulations cannot concentrate the requirement in any single asset class. The power can be used only once, and, if unused, lapses entirely in 2032.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On the consensus in the industry, I say to the hon. Lady that it wants this Bill done and taken through this House. Tonight’s amendments make the savers’ interest test easier to pass, create a lower threshold for an exemption, and give certainty that the exemption will be granted where the threshold is met, with due regard being paid to the scheme’s assessment. Reasons for any refusal will be set out. The House has now considered this Bill three times. On each occasion, it has endorsed the Government’s position. We have listened to the concerns raised in the other place, and we have responded with numerous material changes to the primary legislation across three rounds. The power is capped, neutral across asset classes, restricted to a single use, completely sunsetted in 2035 and subject to a savers’ interest test that tonight’s amendments have materially strengthened. The TUC has said that it is “vital” that this Bill passes. Age UK has said that the measures in this Bill “will help both today’s and tomorrow’s pensioners”. The industry wants to get on with implementing these reforms. The Association of British Insurers and its members have said the same. They have welcomed the safeguards that the Government have put in place on the reserve power. It is time to get this Bill passed, and I commend the Government’s position to the House. Question put.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but that is not going to happen. We have to deal with the collective action problem that we are facing, to ensure that providers can move forward with the commitments that they have made. The power gives them assurance, but we hope that we will never need to use the power. The fact of the matter is that the industry requires that certainty; without it, it will not be able to move forward, given the collective action problem that exists. That point has been accepted by the shadow Secretary of State.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We are increasing the resources available to handle Members’ correspondence, but given the delays that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, if he wants to write to me with those details, I will look into them urgently for him.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I fundamentally disagree with the perspective of the hon. Gentleman on people who have been here for years, made a contribution and paid their taxes, and then require some help back from a state that they have paid into, sometimes for decades. Not only that, the figure that he uses is a complete conflation and a significant overestimation. He shows his ignorance if he does not understand that it is impossible to suggest that that money has all been paid directly to foreign nationals because the figure that he uses is drawn from the total number of households with a foreign national in them, and many of the individual claimants could in fact be British or Irish citizens.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I will.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Departmental Response Times · Hansard source

  More

  Our annual report and accounts 2024-25 states that, in that year, we answered some 43 million calls—up from 37 million in the previous year. Our call-answering rate increased to 86%, and the average answering time improved by one minute and 12 seconds. However, we do of course want to make further improvements where we can. We have continued to prioritise the service by focusing extra resources, and are currently making a systematic effort to clear agent work queues to free up capacity. We hope to see that progress lead to further improvements very soon.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Departmental Response Times · Hansard source

  More

  I would be happy to look into that case if the hon. Lady writes to me. I am sorry if she feels that her constituent has been let down. We are taking additional steps—beyond those relating to call handling—to look at responsiveness more broadly. I apologise: it was not clear from the wording of her original question that she was referring to correspondence as well as telephony.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  Redundancy payments are not taken into account in the standard maintenance calculation, which is based on gross taxable income from earnings, although the capital may be considered through an asset variation if the paying parent holds the income in a bank or savings account and the amount is at least £31,250. The Child Maintenance Service may also take the redundancy payment into account when considering any maintenance arrears.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  Part of the challenge here is that the legislation currently requires us to use earnings information and figures provided by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and, because redundancy payments of up to £80,000 are exempted from tax, they do not show up in that way. [ Official Report , 18 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 8WC.] (Correction) However, I hear what the hon. Lady is saying and the wider mood of the House with regard to the Child Maintenance Service, and I will share the concerns that she raises with my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  The CMS publishes several metrics regarding how quickly it responds to parents. In the quarter ending September 2025, on average, 96% of applications were cleared within 12 weeks and 83% of changes of circumstances were cleared within 28 days. Those are targets for the CMS set by the Department.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  As I said in a previous response, we will do so when parliamentary time allows. My noble Friend Baroness Sherlock is also considering a calculation review. There is a range of issues with the CMS that need to be looked at and resolved to ensure that the children in the middle of this get the support to which they are entitled.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  My noble Friend Baroness Sherlock takes a very keen interest in this issue, in particular how we can look at the abolition of direct pay to subvert some of the instances of financial abuse and coercive control that we continue to see. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me about her specific case, I will ensure she receives a response.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know that she has been representing Rebecca for some time in seeking a resolution to that case. We seek to introduce a range of changes when parliamentary time allows, but clearly there is further work to do to ensure that enforcement processes are also strengthened. Baroness Sherlock would be happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend if she feels that would be appropriate, and I would be happy to facilitate such a meeting.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there is a significant improvement journey under way in the Child Maintenance Service. I am always keen to point out to Members that while we see a large number of CMS cases in our caseload due to the more adversarial nature of the cases it deals with, it is a fraction of the overall number of cases that the Department deals with. We continue to ensure prompt payments to more than a million children.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  Shared care can be incredibly contested, and questions about the suitability of evidence and which evidence takes precedent are often disputed. The hon. Member suggests that he has particular cases that he would like the Department to take a look into. If he writes to me with them, the responsible Minister, my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock, or I will provide a response.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I suggest that it is always good practice for an individual to look at how their pensions and other investments are invested. I am more than happy to ask the pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the specifics of whether we are looking at any work in this space to enable people to have greater access to that information. It is best if I take that question away and come back. It is also best if I come back to the hon. Member for St Albans on her question about behavioural change. As the hon. Member said, 77% is a significant number when we are talking about 14 million members. Guided retirement sets out the principles and framework for how schemes should support the vast majority of members with the big decisions as they move into saving for retirement. We will clearly need to do a range of work to ensure that proper support is available in the necessary amount, but I will ensure that she receives an update on the specific activities that the Department is undertaking to move us forward in that regard. It is a reasonable question, and I will ensure that she gets a detailed response. The amendment itself simply enables NEST to provide for the decumulation options required to deliver on the broad principles of the changes that we are seeking to make. Given the overall support for the measures, I commend the instrument to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.